Copyright Notice

It would seem to me to be more productive to just develop the Preliminary Specification and forget about these politics and fighting with Goliath. Pretty naive eh? This is a follow on post to the one entitled “Three Times Lucky?” This copyright notice deals with the law and political facts of copyright law and the implications regarding those laws.

The Preliminary Specification, the innovation in oil and gas blog of which you are reading this, the Preliminary Research Report and other material are the Intellectual Property (IP) of Paul D. Cox. This IP has been developed at significant cost with the expressed purpose to provide the oil and gas industry with solutions to the industries issues. They are not to be used in any other form or manner other than what I deem is appropriate. All of my efforts have been to develop the marketplace for these ideas, and to help the oil and gas producer through the IP that is developed here. The laws of the countries in which we operate support these actions. Any unauthorized use of these ideas is forbidden.

I therefore place the CEO’s, CFO’s, COO’s, Officers and Directors of all of the oil and gas producers that are operating in the Canadian and United States jurisdictions on notice that any unauthorized use of my Intellectual Property is forbidden. These copyright laws are established laws, and you are lawful corporations. And yes, this notice does extend explicitly to those participants, past and present, of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers CIO Committee. The law applies to you as well.

Consumers of the Android operating system could care less that Google has violated Oracle's Java Developer Kit. Producers who invest millions in their ERP system will conduct significant due diligence to ensure their vendors Intellectual Property claims are valid.

The Preliminary Specification provides the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. People, Ideas & Objects Revenue Model specifies the means in which investors can participate in these user defined software developments. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy.

Three Times Lucky?

We need to take a quick break from the Research & Capabilities module to take care of some housekeeping duties.

Goliath has made the first move! Goliath is the name that I’m going to start calling the oil and gas bureaucracy. It makes them more human and puts our battle into context. Anyway it was just a matter of time before we started mixing it up. With the Preliminary Specifications decentralized production model providing $94 billion in additional revenues and profits to the oil and gas producers. Goliath wasn't looking all that attractive. Goliath needed to do something before these ideas became too prevalent in the marketplace. So now Goliath has acted and he put another pawn in place, and its Ernst & Young. Let me be the first to welcome them and to note that they join an esteemed cohort. Previous pawns included Cambridge Energy Research Associates and McKinsey Consulting. So they should honestly consider themselves privileged.

What Goliath does is he hires these firms and has them prepare some research that replicates certain elements of the Preliminary Specification, as in the Ernst & Young case, or other research of People, Ideas & Objects. Note that their research or studies are derivative of my Intellectual Property of which I am the copyright holder. They, the pawns, then proceed to publish the material as if they have some breakthrough in terms of oil and gas understanding. But then I call. Then its not so earth shattering when we compare notes. The fact that Ernst & Young has published a study that is surprisingly similar to the decentralized production model. That they pull this miraculously out of thin air. That this is highly inconsistent with the output of a big audit firm and their past papers. Makes Ernst & Young look poorly and Goliath should be ashamed of himself. Ernst & Young, who I believe understands the Intellectual Property laws, doesn’t appear however to share Cambridge's or McKinsey moral and ethical backbone.

The first mention of the decentralized production model in this blog is in January 5, 2007. You can check for yourself. The development of the idea obviously took a few years, but then I’m not as smart as those guys at Ernst & Young. The fact that both of us have topical solutions to the industries problems, at the same time, is the point. But wait, People, Ideas & Objects are a comprehensive software and service offering, and Ernst & Young are a study! Well maybe I’m not that slow after all.

The bigger picture here is that Goliath is not that well. He is old, tired and doesn’t have that much usable life in front of him. I don’t know what his exact medical issues are but there seems to be a lot of medical people around him at all times. Its understandable that he is fighting for his life. Like other bureaucracies that are faced with their ultimate demise as a result of Information Technologies, they can’t sustain too much more of a beating. As I said $94 billion in opportunity costs for 2012 alone is a distinct value proposition that People, Ideas & Objects provides the oil and gas industry. Goliath can’t sit there and do nothing in the face of such obvious value destruction. So let Goliath fight for a few more days, the game is afoot and I feel like a few good rounds with the old boy.

The Preliminary Specification provides the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. People, Ideas & Objects Revenue Model specifies the means in which investors can participate in these user defined software developments. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy.

McKinsey, Dan Ariely on Irrationality

Another short McKinsey article to fill out our first week back. This article provides a different perspective on some every day points of view in business. Its a little light hearted but I think you’ll enjoy it.

http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Dan_Ariely_on_irrationality_in_the_workplace_2742?pagenum=1#daninteractive


For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Please note what Google+ provides us is the opportunity to prove that People, Ideas & Objects are committed to developing this community. That this is user developed software, not change that is driven from the top down. Join me on the People, Ideas & Objects Google+ Circle and begin building the community for the development of the Preliminary Specification. Email me here if you need an invite.

McKinsey on Creating Value

In a world where Cash-for-Clunkers and QE II are considered solutions to what ails our economy. It is refreshing to see this presentation by McKinsey Consulting. This presentation is talking about the ways that value is created and destroyed in firms. Although the video at times seems to stumble, it is only in the presentation of difficult material that makes it appear that way. What is being discussed are advanced concepts that need to be adopted by innovative oil and gas producers.

McKinsey identifies four of the mechanisms that generate and destroy value in business. In the Preliminary Research Report it was noted that focusing on growth as a strategy may not generate the value that a producer firm needs. That innovation is a strategy to optimize the value of the producer firm is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects.

In a related paper, McKinsey relates the difficulty for firms to focus on value generation.

It’s one thing for a CFO to understand the technical methods of valuation—and for members of the finance organization to apply them to help line managers monitor and improve company performance. But it’s still more powerful when CEOs, board members, and other non-financial executives internalize the principles of value creation. Doing so allows them to make independent, courageous, and even unpopular business decisions in the face of myths and misconceptions about what creates value.

The Draft Specification provides two modules that make these calculations and enable these decisions to be made, the Performance Evaluation, and Analytics & Statistics modules. These two modules functionality are very similar. The key difference is that the Performance Evaluation module deals with the producer firm and the Analytics & Statistics module views data from the Joint Operating Committee perspective.

For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Technorati Tags: People's McKinsey Innovation Leadership Management Strategy

McKinsey on Centered Leadership

Today we continue on with the topic of leadership with review of two papers from McKinsey (here and here) that look into a research term they call Centered Leadership. Recently we had the opportunity to review an article from John Hagel and John Seely Brown on the need to develop leaders, and we noted how leadership is a skill that can’t be automated by computers. We’ll start with a quick review of the five elements of McKinsey’s centered leadership and then look at each element closer.

Over the past six years, McKinsey has developed a map of capabilities we call centered leadership. This concept has five dimensions: meaning, or finding your strengths and putting them to work in the service of a purpose that inspires you; positive framing, or adopting a more constructive way to view your world and convert even difficult situations into opportunities; connecting, or building a stronger sense of community and belonging; engaging, or pursuing opportunities disguised by risk; and energizing, or practicing ways to sustain your energy on a long leadership journey.

Applying these dimensions to the prospective users and Community of Independent Service Providers provides the following.

Meaning

People, Ideas & Objects is focused on providing the innovative oil and gas producer with the systems needed to identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Through this revolutionary change, the industry will be able to better manage their operations. We have also asserted that through use of People, Ideas & Objects software and the Community of Independent Service Providers (CISP), we are able to provide the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. This is our competitive advantage and the we derive meaning from these facts. (Most profitable operations are attained through the lowest cost ERP system, and the software identifying and supporting enhanced divisions of labor and specialization.)

Time and again, we heard that sharing meaning to inspire colleagues requires leaders to become great storytellers, touching hearts as well as minds. These skills are particularly applicable for executives leading through major transitions, since it takes strong personal motivation to triumph over the discomfort and fear that accompany change and that can drown out formal corporate messages, which in any event rarely fire the souls of employees and inspire greater achievement.

Framing

People, Ideas & Objects sees the world optimistically. We live in times where intellectual leverage is being offered and made possible by advanced Information Technology. Setting us on a revolution that is equivalent to what we realized through mechanical leverage in the industrial revolution.

Positive psychologists have shown that some people tend to frame the world optimistically, others pessimistically. Optimists often have an edge: in our survey, three-quarters of the respondents who were particularly good at positive framing thought they had the right skills to lead change, while only 15 percent of those who weren’t thought so.

Connecting

To continue on with the theme of revolution, communications are cutting through the bureaucracies enabling us to connect to like minded individuals. People, Ideas & Objects software developments provide users and members of the Community of Independent Service Providers with the opportunity to leverage their connections into the commercial realm.

With communications traveling at warp speed, simple hierarchical cascades—from the CEO down until the chain breaks—are becoming less and less effective for leaders. For starters, leaders depend increasingly on their ability to manage complex webs of connections that aren’t suited to traditional, linear communication styles. Further, leaders can find the volume of communication in such networks overwhelming. While this environment can be challenging, it also allows more people to contribute, generating not only wisdom and a wealth of ideas but also immeasurable commitment.

Engaging

Of survey respondents who indicated they were poor at engaging—with risk, with fear, and even with opportunity—only 13 percent thought they had the skills to lead change. That’s hardly surprising: risk aversion and fear run rampant during times of change. Leaders who are good at acknowledging and countering these emotions can help their people summon the courage to act and thus unleash tremendous potential.

An element of engaging is how People, Ideas & Objects doesn’t take the time and effort of individuals without understanding the risks and fears they may have. Therefore, the ability to move forward with this project demands that the financial resources be in place before anyone is asked to contribute. People, Ideas & Objects will not ask anyone to incur either monetary or career risks from being involved in this project.

Managing Energy

McKinsey notes:

Sustaining change requires the enthusiasm and commitment of large numbers of people across an organization for an extended period of time. All too often, though, a change effort starts with a big bang of vision statements and detailed initiatives, only to see energy peter out. The opposite, when work escalates maniacally through a culture of “relentless enthusiasm,” is equally problematic. Either way, leaders will find it hard to sustain energy and commitment within the organization unless they systemically restore their own energy (physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual), as well as create the conditions and serve as role models for others to do the same. Our research suggests sustaining and restoring energy is something leaders often skimp on.

Sustaining the energy for this project is something that I consider to be an important part of what I do. For the past five years in which we have been writing about using the Joint Operating Committee as the key organizational construct of the innovative oil and gas producer. We have been able to define the Draft Specification and carry this vision and strategy through some difficult periods. Keeping our “powder dry and our candle lit” for the day in which we begin the development of these systems. This process will continue until such time as the producers learn that their existing ways and means of operation are no longer able to generate value. When producers begin to lose money, we’ll know that our day is close at hand.

Moreover, this survey underscores the impact when leaders embrace not just one or two but all five dimensions of centered leadership. As our 2009 survey also suggested, finding meaning in one’s activities has the strongest impact on general satisfaction with one’s life, but the more dimensions that respondents say they have mastered, the more likely they are to rate themselves highly satisfied with their performance as leaders and with their lives generally.

For this project to succeed leadership from all areas will be needed. As automation of business processes continues and accelerates, skills such as leadership will increase in the day to day activities of most people. Looking ahead what does McKinsey recommend from their research in centered leadership?

• Centered leadership equips leaders for leading change. Among leaders who have mastered all five dimensions of centered leadership, 92 percent say they have the skills to lead through times of major change (versus 21 percent for those yet to master them). Since most executives are living through particularly turbulent economic times, a focus on centered leadership could benefit leaders significantly.
• Big organizations can learn from small ones. Across the board, executives at smaller organizations say they have mastered more dimensions of centered leadership and feel better about their work performance and overall satisfaction. These results suggest that larger organizations have much to learn from small ones on how to attract, motivate, and inspire their employees.
• Future leaders are most at risk. We have long believed that mastering centered leadership is most important for younger women and men who desire to lead, a belief these numbers underscore. The youngest respondents report the lowest scores in all dimensions except connecting. Given the correlation between higher scores and good outcomes, such as leadership effectiveness and general satisfaction, companies would benefit from undertaking the cultural transformation that centered leadership augurs.

For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Technorati Tags: People's McKinsey Leadership Call-to-action

Hagel & Brown on Leadership

John Hagel and John Seeley Brown are two authors that we follow closely here at People, Ideas & Objects. In a Forbes article entitled “Today You Can Only be a Leader by Creating Leaders” they bring up the topic of leadership and how it’s changing.

In a world where automation of transactions and business processes increases, and escalates, particularly with the development of the Draft Specification, leadership is one of the key human actions and skills that can not be automated. A short list of the types of work that people will be involved in in the future is as follows.

• Leadership
• Issue Identification
• Issue Resolution
• Decisions
• Design
• Ideas
• Search

This is to name just a few of the key human activities that will be needed. When we talk about leadership, we note the size and scope of the task that People, Ideas & Objects is focused on. It is the enormity of this task that will require many leaders. Whether its a Product Owner who will work to capture the users demands in the software, or a member of the Community of Independent Service Providers leading a system integration at a producer firm, leadership will be a key skill that will be needed. Hagel & Brown note the somewhat simple process in which this starts.

Leaders can flip these perceptions of risk and reward if they can paint compelling long-term views of the future. This is completely against the grain for most business and political leaders today; they study quarterly numbers to carefully craft a short-term view of the road ahead. Leaders in the big shift will be those who can peer ahead and paint compelling views of opportunities--and not just opportunities for themselves or their institutions but for all kinds of people. If they can help us to make sense of the long-term future, they'll be able to inspire bold action and investment in support of their initiatives, while everyone else sits on the sidelines.

People interested in getting involved with People, Ideas & Objects should contact me here to begin the process of joining this project. People who are interested in building and providing the systems and services the innovative oil and gas producers will need to meet the market demand for energy. We should also take note of the following.

But there will be another even bigger change in leadership. In the past, leaders were measured by how many people followed them. In the era ahead, they will be measured by how many other leaders they can cultivate. We are moving from a world of push, where people are expected to follow detailed scripts to accomplish specified tasks, to a world of pull, where everyone must master the techniques of drawing out people and resources when needed to address unanticipated opportunities and challenges. In the world of push, followers were prized. In the world of pull, everyone must figure out how to become a leader in their own domain.

This makes intuitive sense. With the systems handling the majority of the business, the remaining tasks are not going to be distributed by some all knowing greater power. The more that can be initiated by the leader, the higher the value that is generated for the producers.

Rather than using persuasion to get others to follow predefined programs, the new generation of leaders will use persuasion to help people more effectively draw out their own individual potential. The really effective leader will be one who can persuade emerging leaders to join forces toward common goals and develop faster than they could on their own.

I can’t think of a more exciting place to work. People, Ideas & Objects, the Community of Independent Service Providers offers leaders a place where their skills are needed.

The bottom line: Leaders will no longer be defined by the number of followers they have, but rather by the number of other leaders they have cultivated and mobilized across institutional boundaries. That is a profound shift.

For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Technorati Tags: People's Hagel Brown Leadership CISP Product-Owner

McKinsey, The Psychology of Change Management

McKinsey, once again, have published an article that provides real value and discussion to the work we are doing here at People, Ideas & Objects. Change is a difficult process to manage. This article discusses the psychology around change management within organizations, and therefore is relevant, but I want to mention a few aspects of People, Ideas & Objects unique perspective before we review this paper.

There are two types of changes that affect organizations. The first type of change is to steer the ship in a new direction, one that is believed to be the better choice for all concerned. The second type of change is the type that is forced upon an organization by events that are beyond the control of anyone. People, Ideas & Objects is oriented to the second type of change. One that addresses the scope of the forces of change that are being exercised on the oil and producer.

The forces of change that are currently being asserted on the oil and gas producers are significant. The change in oil and gas prices affects all aspects of a producer firm. At the same time the volume of engineering and earth science effort per barrel of oil continues on a steep upward trajectory. A third major change that is occurring is what I would call the maturation of the Information Technologies (IT), bringing new and innovative ways of doing business. These are of the type of changes that are seen once a century. Fundamental changes that have the power to re-configure the makeup of an industry.

To accommodate the changes that are acting against the producer firm, People, Ideas & Objects prescription is to align the producers internal processes. By simply moving the compliance and governance frameworks to be in alignment with the Joint Operating Committee’s legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural and communications frameworks. Our research has shown that this alignment increases innovativeness and accountability, to name just two of the key benefits.

Alternatively, left unaddressed, these changes will soon cause producers to outspend their revenue streams. These losses will also exercise the type of change that is needed within the producer firm and the oil and gas industry. Producers therefore need to choose to ride these forces or continue to resist them. Either way that these changes are made, People, Ideas & Objects will provide the systems and applications that provide the innovative oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations.

Our claim to be the most profitable means of oil and gas operations is a bold statement. And we assert that this is provided through our value proposition and the enhanced division of labor the software will identify and support. By allocating the one time development costs across the producer base, the costs of software development will fall to a small percentage of what firms have traditionally paid for ERP systems.

With respect to the second component of our claim to being the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. For any industry to increase its economic output demands that an enhanced division of labor be used. This economic theory has been proven time and again over the last few hundred years. We now live in times where to expand on the current division of labor and specialization requires that advanced Information Technologies be employed to identify and support them. People, Ideas & Objects is configured to develop the software that will provide these to the producer firm. This is our fundamental competitive advantage.

McKinsey’s discussion on change is of the first type, or deliberate change an organization undertakes. Nonetheless it provides us with some valuable information regarding change in general.

Over the past 15 or so years, programs to improve corporate organizational performance have become increasingly common. Yet they are notoriously difficult to carry out. Success depends on persuading hundreds or thousands of groups and individuals to change the way they work, a transformation people will accept only if they can be persuaded to think differently about their jobs. In effect, CEOs must alter the mind-sets of their employees—no easy task.

People, Ideas & Objects have presented a workable vision of how the innovative oil and gas producer would operate. This vision is represented in the Draft Specification. People can then see the effect of working in that environment and adjust their actions to fulfill that vision and enable the innovative oil and gas producer.

But what if the only way a business can reach its higher performance goals is to change the way its people behave across the board? Suppose that it can become more competitive only by changing its culture fundamentally—from being reactive to proactive, hierarchical to collegial, or introspective to externally focused, for instance. Since the collective culture of an organization, strictly speaking, is an aggregate of what is common to all of its group and individual mind-sets, such a transformation entails changing the minds of hundreds or thousands of people. This is the third and deepest level: cultural change.

With the benefits of people having this vision in mind. And using the Joint Operating Committee as the key organizational construct of the innovative producer, people will be able to think differently about their work.

Employees will alter their mind-sets only if they see the point of the change and agree with it—at least enough to give it a try. The surrounding structures (reward and recognition systems, for example) must be in tune with the new behavior. Employees must have the skills to do what it requires. Finally, they must see people they respect modeling it actively. Each of these conditions is realized independently; together they add up to a way of changing the behavior of people in organizations by changing attitudes about what can and should happen at work.

In this next quote McKinsey note that cognitive dissonance will affect the people who believe in our purpose. I can only suggest that those people begin the process of joining People, Ideas & Objects or the Community of Independent Service Providers.

The implication of this finding for an organization is that if its people believe in its overall purpose, they will be happy to change their individual behavior to serve that purpose—indeed, they will suffer from cognitive dissonance if they don’t. But to feel comfortable about change and to carry it out with enthusiasm, people must understand the role of their actions in the unfolding drama of the company’s fortunes and believe that it is worthwhile for them to play a part. It isn’t enough to tell employees that they will have to do things differently. Anyone leading a major change program must take the time to think through its "story"—what makes it worth undertaking—and to explain that story to all of the people involved in making change happen, so that their contributions make sense to them as individuals.

For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Technorati Tags: People's McKinsey Call-to-action Change Management Leadership Vision

The Joint Operating Committee is Critical

Starting with today’s post we will begin a process of reviewing the data, information and ideas that makes up People, Ideas & Objects and the Draft Specification. This will provide readers with a thorough understanding of the elements that make up this project. These posts can be aggregated by selecting the Review label.

People, Ideas & Objects began with the Preliminary Research Report’s hypothesis asking “if the Joint Operating Committee (JOC), modified with today’s information technologies, provides an oil and gas concern with the opportunity for advanced innovativeness.” The critical breakthrough in the research’s conclusion is the “industry standard JOC is the “natural” form of organization for oil and gas where the participants of the committee are supported and augmented through the diversity and availability of the remaining organizations team members. A greater alignment to this conceptual model would facilitate the desired innovation.”

So if this is how the industry operates why does it need People, Ideas & Objects Draft Specification, its software development capability and associated user communities? The difficulty is that today’s ERP systems do not recognize the existence of the Joint Operating Committee. This stands in contrast to the fact that the JOC is the legal, financial, cultural, communication and operational decision making framework of the industry. Every internal and external process of a producer tacitly recognizes these frameworks. However, the organizational focus has become centered on the compliance and governance frameworks of the royalty, tax and SEC requirements of the producer firm. What the Preliminary Research Report determined, and the Draft Specification implements, is the movement of the compliance and governance frameworks into alignment with the five frameworks of the JOC.

For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Technorati Tags: People's Development Governance Innovation Leadership Organization Research

The China Syndrome

In a recent post we highlighted the EIA’s revised energy supply forecast. The chart from that post shows a 1 million barrel per day reduction in current production volumes. Econbrowser is now publishing anlysis of the EIA’s energy demand forecast, focusing on the impact that China will have in the marketplace. 

Providing the market with adequate energy supplies would be a difficult issue on its own. Adding the unprecedented demand expected from China, provides a real opportunity for the innovative oil and gas producer. The author of the econbrowser article, Stephen Kopits notes an interesting characteristic of energy demand.

Oil demand does not grow linearly with GDP. Rather, the bulk of oil demand growth occurs in the two decades during which societies typically acquire motor vehicles, after which per capita oil demand flattens. For example, per capita oil consumption in the United States is today lower than it was in 1979, even though per capita income has increased substantially since.

That is not to say that the U.S. demand for energy has dropped. The focus on motor vehicles alone, which is what Kopits reviews, would therefore limit the potential demand from China to just that form of consumption. If we are to gain an understanding of the volume of potential demand from China, motor vehicles will be a portion of that demand, but not the sole source of the demand increase. Now the scary part of the analysis. Comparing the per capita increases in energy use of Japan (1960 - 1973) and Korea (1976 - 1996) and using either of those trajectories in China’s situation shows...

In any event, without delving deeper, we might expect China's steady state demand for oil could prove not less than that of more advanced Asian nations. Based on the experience of Korea and Japan, China's current population would be expected to consume approximately 55 mbpd at steady state (when per capita consumption plateaus), or nearly 2/3 of current global oil production, were the supply available.

One might argue that this is an unreasonable amount of energy consumption. It imputes systemic gridlock throughout China, and therefore would define the upper limit of what is possible. Nonetheless the volume of energy demand will be substantial. In this next quotation Kopits argues that the EIA’s forecast demand is similarly too low.

By contrast, the EIA sees China's oil consumption at only 10 mbpd for 2015, a growth rate of approximately 2.7% from current levels, and at only 16 mbpd by 2030. Is this consistent with a country whose vehicle sales are up 56% in the first five months of the year? Where sales of Audi's are up 77% and those of BMW have doubled compared to the first five months of last year? Is China truly going to be satisfied, as the EIA would have it, with less than 1/5th of the per capita oil consumption of Korea in 2030, even though they should be similar by that time?

and

The differences in views about China's oil demand outlook have enormous policy implications. If the EIA is right, and China will forget how to grow, then pressures on the oil supply will be modest. On the other hand, if China is to develop like other countries in Asia, the pressure on the oil supply will be crushing, with oil shocks, recessions, and war all conceivable outcomes. The energy--as well as the economic and security--policy differences between the two scenarios are like night and day.

I don’t think it has to be that way. Call me an optimist but I think that whatever China, the U.S. and all others need in terms of energy, it is possible to supply them at prices that reflect that demand. The costs associated with the exploration and production will be substantially higher then what they are today. The easy stuff is gone, that is something that we can all agree on. The prices and volumes of production are unknown at this time, with demand growth from China, the oil and gas business has moved into a different era of operations. We know that a commodity like oil or gas is affected by the demand from China no matter where the source of production is. 


Today’s oil and gas firms, particularly the large Independents and International Oil Companies are having difficulty generating value. The cost structures have caught up to the commodities prices and the performance of these bureaucratic firms is diminishing rapidly. If we look forward to 2030 we can assume that the way these firms are managed today will be history. No one would establish a firm today to operate in the fashion of the bureaucracy in 2030. 


What we do know about 2030 is that the industry will be using advanced systems to manage their operations. It is also reasonable to assume that the Joint Operating Committee (JOC) will be the key organizational construct of the innovative producer. The use of both the technology and the JOC will be decided upon today. Approaching issues that are as broad in scope as the supply and demand of energy, that present this level of opportunity, can not be approached in the same old bureaucratic fashion. We need to pursue a definitive course of action, by developing the Draft Specification of People, Ideas & Objects. 


Society is put in peril when world oil production declines. There is evidence that the world's oil production has declined. Therefore the world needs to have the energy industry expand its production. To do so requires that we reorganize to enhance the division of labor and specialization within the industry. As has been proven, this reorganization could achieve far greater oil and gas production. Management of the industry is conflicted in expanding the output of the industry. The less they do, the higher the oil and gas prices and the better they appear to perform. This managerial conflict must be addressed and the performance of the industry unleashed. To do so requires the current management of the industry to fund People, Ideas & Objects and build the systems as defined in the Draft Specification. Please join me here.

Technorati Tags: People's China Economics Energy IEA Leadership Organization Vision

Approaching regulatory issues

Many of the ways that problems are solved in the Draft Specification might lead to issues with the current regulatory frameworks. This should be expected. We are building a system that is designed and intended for the 21st century. Retrofitting 20th century regulatory frameworks into these systems is going to create some friction. Where conflict and contradiction exist, creative and innovative solutions can begin.

We have a variety of ways to deal with these issues, if and when they arise. We can take the literal interpretation and implement the compliance feature in much the same way they would be implemented today. We can design new and innovative ways in which compliance can be achieved and alternatively we can influence and change the compliance framework itself.

Of these three different approaches we should aspire to attain better compliance and governance of the producer and market firms. This clean slate approach is one of the advantages that we acquire, we should optimize it. Sounds like a job for the Community of Independent Service Providers.

Society is put in peril when world oil production declines. There is evidence that the worlds oil production has declined. Therefore the world needs to have the energy industry expand its production. To do so requires that we reorganize to enhance the division of labor and specialization within the industry. As has been proven, this reorganization could achieve far greater oil and gas production. Management of the industry are conflicted in expanding the output of the industry. The less they do, the higher the oil and gas prices and the better they appear to perform. This managerial conflict must be addressed and the performance of the industry unleashed. To do so requires the current management of the industry to fund People, Ideas & Objects and build the systems as defined in the Draft Specification. Please join me here.

Technorati Tags: Strategy Organization Leadership Change
 

World oil production has declined.

Within this post I discuss the current situation with respect to how global oil production has declined. I assert in this post that management must now act to avoid the perception of conflict, and must act to fund People, Ideas & Objects.

In May 2004's Preliminary Research Report I proposed we research the following hypothesis.

• The corporate hierarchical organizational structure is an impediment to progress and most particularly, innovation.
• Determine if the Industry Standard Joint Operating Committee, modified with today’s information technologies, provides an oil and gas concern with the opportunity for advanced innovativeness.

It was through the research of this hypothesis that it was implicitly held that the bureaucracy would cease to provide the market with adequate energy. That day is now closer then we expect, and the time in which to act is upon us. If we do not act in a reasonable period of time, then the economy that we know today, will truly be history. Our first action is to prepare to organize ourselves for the challenge of turning around the productivity in world oil production, and then increasing it substantially to meet the prospective needs of all people.

The Issue.

After five years of static oil production, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) are reporting that global oil production has declined in 2010. In the chart below, 2010 production can be seen to have declined. This is a significant event in the history of the petroleum industry. As most would predict, I see this decline in production as a direct result of the systemic failure of the bureaucracies in oil and gas, and tacit support for our hypothesis.

It might be argued that the recession is having a detrimental effect on energy demand, however, I think that is an incorrect conclusion. I think it is fair to assume that the prior five years of static oil production was the cause of the run up in the price of oil. Add to this the world economies have resumed a reasonable level of growth, therefore demand would be growing, not in decline. What the chart reflects is an approximate one million barrel drop in production. I believe this is the beginning of the downturn in global oil production. To say that I have a vested interest in selling this system to the oil and gas industry is correct, and that therefore I am biased is also correct. However this fact is perceived, I think action is necessary to begin the developments of People, Ideas & Objects software.

Seizing the Moral High Ground.

I believe the management of oil and gas companies are conflicted. The less they do about the expansion of oil and gas deliverability, the higher the oil and gas prices, and the better they appear as managers. This conflict has been in play for the past five years. With the overall decline in production now upon us. It is time for the management to assume their moral and ethical responsibility to increase global production. This can only be done by expansion of the industry through the proven economic principles of a further division of labor and specialization. Economic principles that we have used in the development of the Draft Specification. Organizing around the Joint Operating Committee, and in a manner for the industry to expand its output.

Management are now being called to do the right thing. Eliminate their conflict and financially support People, Ideas & Objects. During the past five years the bureaucracies that operate the oil and gas companies have stated that the static nature of oil deliverability was not their problem. Their focus was on their own business domain, and that was all that they could consider. Now this situation has changed in a fundamental way. If it is not the oil and gas industries problem, as to how to deliver the market demand for energy, who's is it? The need to move the industry from the perspective of "minding your own business" to the moral and ethical issues associated with a real decline in energy production must begin.

Our recent past has shown that oil and gas companies have chosen not to participate in these software developments. Effective April 1, 2010 our appeal had been re-directed towards those oil and gas shareholders and investors that know there is a better way. Effective today this too has changed. As of today, we are focusing our funding efforts on the bureaucracies management. Invoking their moral and ethical duty that everything be done to ensure the world has adequate energy supplies.

Adam Smith and the Division of Labor.

Funding is required to begin the developments of the software and communities that are part of the People, Ideas & Objects initiative. If we continue to just throw money at the bureaucracies, we will not get anywhere. Our approach to reorganizing the industry must be based on the proven techniques and economic principles of Adam Smith's division of labor and specialization. Just as Adam Smith was able to prove his theories by reorganizing a pin factory, and in the process increase pin production by 250 times. Through use of these same principles, by way of the development of People, Ideas & Objects software, the industry can increase its deliverability of oil and gas.

Build the Software.

Why we need to build software to solve this problem is due to the fact that organizations in our modern economy are defined and supported by software. To state that People, Ideas & Objects is the software that identifies and supports the innovative oil and gas producer, and is counter to the argument that SAP is the bureaucracy. Within the Draft Specification we are moving towards the culture of the industry, the Joint Operating Committee, which is the legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural and communication frameworks of all global oil and gas producers. By recognizing these facts and aligning the hierarchies compliance and governance to the JOC, innovation and speed of operations are the results.

We need to begin the funding of these software developments. Initial development costs have been budgeted in the $700 million to $1 billion range. The method for funding these costs is based on an annual levy of $x / barrel of oil equivalent. That levy has been set at $1.00 for 2010, potentially (conceptually) raising $120 million in one year. Further information on how to participate is located here.

I see these developments as an important turning point in the history of the oil and gas industry. Seeing that our hypothesis has been proven correct. Producers that subscribe to these developments would gain an operational and financial performance benefit from being involved in this software development project. Action to fund these developments is required. Our appeal should be based on these eight "Focused on" priorities and values of how better the oil and gas industry and its operations could be handled. They may not initially be the right way to go, but we are committed to working with the various communities to discover and ensure the right ones are. 

In Summary

Society is put in peril when world oil production declines. There is evidence that the worlds oil production has declined. Therefore the world needs to have the energy industry expand its production. To do so requires that we reorganize to enhance the division of labor and specialization within the industry. As has been proven, this reorganization could achieve far greater oil and gas production. Management of the industry are conflicted in expanding the output of the industry. The less they do, the higher the oil and gas prices and the better they appear to perform. This managerial conflict must be addressed and the performance of the industry unleashed. To do so requires the current management of the industry to fund People, Ideas & Objects and build the systems as defined in the Draft Specification. Please join me here.

Technorati Tags: People's Funding Leadership Management Failure
 

Langlois, Economic Institutions Part III

We continue with our review of Professor Richard N. Langlois July 2009 "Economic Institutions and the Boundaries of the Firm: The Case of Business Groups". Today's post will deal with similarity and complementarity as they relate to gap filling. In the example provided by Langlois, LG Groups former chairman cited how the need to have "gaps" filled launched new lines of business to fill a need "At the time, no company could supply us with plastic caps of adequate quality for cream jars, so we had to start a plastics business". And the new lines of business were then used to expand into areas that were related "This plastics business also led us to manufacture electric fan blades and telephone cases".

It has been suggested in my recent blog posts that the capacity to "gap fill" is non-existent in the oil and gas industry. The collaborations between suppliers and oil and gas companies is best represented by BP blaming TransOcean and Halliburton for the problems in the Gulf of Mexico. To move forward based on innovation and further development of the sciences will require the oil and gas producers to begin to work together with the service sector. Blaming them and calling them greedy because the cost structures are escalating are symptomatic of the bigger issues. These all stem from the fact the oil and gas companies are only reaping what they've sowed. And I would also suggest that these costs are increasing due to the limited, if any, real innovation being conducted at each and every Joint Operating Committee. People are unwilling to offer any suggestion for fear of the repercussions. Why bother doing anything above and beyond when the status-quo will be accepted.

Management of the bureaucracies have reigned over the service sector with the grace of a Roman Emperor. Putting thumbs up or down on an innovation on the basis that they have immediate need for it or not, and expecting solutions to spontaneously exist when problems do arise. This entire process of development has devolved to the point where little is being done and ranks on par with the oil and gas companies suggesting to the service industry to "let them eat cake."

The point I am trying to make here is that the ability to change from this type of mindset is difficult if not impossible. After all where are the Romans today? The transition in cultures that will build on the gap filling similarities and complementarities is under way, in my opinion. What this process needs is to develop the market supporting infrastructure that will support these types of innovation. That means the Draft Specification is the crucial first piece of infrastructure.

Langlois notes two important points. 1) "Economic historians, especially those of what we might call the Stanford School (David 1975, 1990; Rosenberg 1976), have long stressed the importance of such complementarities for the pace and direction of technological change and economic growth". 2) "But that doesn’t explain why and when other institutional structures like markets or multidivisional firms arise to solve the same kinds of problems".

So how do we analyze this and change it...

A satisfying explanation, I argue, will have to be a contingent one, an explanation that takes into account the facts on the ground of markets and institutions. With only a little oversimplification, we can think of the these contingent facts as falling on three levels.

• The level of markets. How extensive are markets for complementary resources? How easy is to marshal the necessary complementary capabilities (or their outputs)?

The creativity and innovativeness of the oil and gas industry is clearly missing in the Gulf of Mexico. Gone is the can-do attitude that built the business. Today one is more likely to overhear the management openly discuss their pension benefits. The oil and gas industry is a bureaucratic nightmare.

• The level of market-supporting institutions. How well developed are the institutional structures that help markets function well – that reduce the costs of coordinating complementary activities through relatively anonymous exchange among legally separate entities rather than through internal coordination within an organization? Such institutions would run the gamut from technological standards (Langlois and Robertson 1992) to legal and organizational innovations like double-entry bookkeeping (Rosenberg and Birdzell 1986) or the anonymous limited-liability corporation (Hansmann and Kraakman 2000).

Here we have seen the capacity of the industry to employ up to 11,000 people working on the well and the flow of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Yet no one seems to have an idea as to what to do! The thinking for the solutions to cap the leaks is at its most basic level. This is representative as to why the companies cost structures have gotten out of control. Throwing more money is the first and only instinct of management.

• The level of political institutions. What is the character of the state, the organization with a territorial monopoly on the use of force? How well protected are property rights? In what ways does the government intervene in the economy? What is the nature and degree of corruption? pp. 11 - 12

Politics in oil and gas are at a truly global scale. These forces will undoubtedly increase as the pressures from consumers and environmentalists escalate.

I think these three institutions (markets, market-supporting and political) accurately captures the tone of business in the industry. It is a do-nothing, cover yourself and make sure you get lots of cash type of operation. Other then building the Draft Specification, what other market-supporting institutions are necessary and how do we build them? What type of organizations and institutions do we need to build? How far will the sciences advance in the next 10 years, and how will the industry keep up?

So when would we expect the problems of coordinating complementary activities to be solved by the emergence of market-supporting institutions (and thus by markets, broadly understood) and when by vertical integration? This is a crucial — and, in my view, under-researched — question. Clearly, issues of cost matter, as in the grain example. Such issues include neoclassical economies of scale; Williamson-style transaction costs; the costs of diversifying into activities requiring capabilities dissimilar from those one already possesses; and the costs of setting up and maintaining market supporting institutions (Langlois 2006). Once again, these costs are contingent: they depend on the nature and level of capabilities and of market-supporting institutions already in place. And this suggests two related hypotheses (holding other things constant, of course). pp. 16 - 17

The first is that the processes involved are likely to be path dependent and linked to the passage of time. p. 17

The second hypothesis, which has resonances at least as far back as Gerschenkron’s famous “backwardness” thesis (Gerschenkron 1962), is that the way an economy responds to the problems of coordinating economic development depends not only on its own institutions and capabilities but also on institutions and capabilities elsewhere. It depends not only on an economy’s own history but on the history of other economies as well. The force of this observation is that an economy at the frontier of economic development (however we care to define that) is likely to respond to the coordination problem differently than an economy lagging behind that frontier. Specifically, an economy at the frontier is arguably more likely to rely on decentralized modes of coordination. This is so because uncertainty is greater at the frontier — uncertainty about technology, organizational form, market direction. p. 18

For the purposes of this post I want to exclude discussion of the first hypothesis. Since we are assuming that these bureaucratic nightmares are failing, we need not rely on them. The second hypothesis suggests that depending on the degree of "frontier of economic development" will determine the level of decentralization. The world produces 120 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. Dealing with an industry of this size on a centralized basis, as the bureaucracies are attempting to today, is foolhardy. What I am suggesting is that we not only pool the producers resources represented in the Joint Operating Committee (JOC), but include the service sectors in the definition of the market-supporting infrastructure. The solution that is being suggested is represented in the Draft Specifications Military Command & Control Metaphor, Resource Marketplace and Research & Capabilities modules.

If we go back to the Preliminary Research Report we will find the work of Professor's Wanda Orlikowski and Anthony Giddens on Structuration. We will find that structuration states the organizations, society and people move together or there will be failure. In Professor Orlikowski's Technological Model of Structuration, technology identifies and supports societies. Technology is both an enabler and an inhibitor. If society and people demand more from our organizations, which clearly they are demanding of the oil and gas industry. Then technically a failure has occurred. And particularly we can see the current situation in oil and gas being inhibited by the technologies that are employed. Therefore to change organizations and culture, structuration requires that we change the technology that identifies and supports the industry, to resemble the institutions that we desire.

To Langlois' point about the frontier. The industry is transitioning from a banking mentality of earning guaranteed returns on investments. This is born of the cheap energy era where survival was the key to financial success. Now as a scientifically based industry, the two cultures are clashing and the industry is not structured to operate on this frontier. Expectations that this transition will happen naturally is incorrect.

Langlois also notes Gerschenkron's backwardness as a precursor to the second hypothesis. In The Capitalist & the Entrepreneur (Free download available here.) by Professor Peter Klein, I find this quote that better exemplifies the current status of the energy industries efforts.

Indeed, traditional command-style economies, such as that of the former USSR, appear to be able only to mimic those tasks that market economies have performed before; they are unable to set up and execute original tasks. The [Soviet] system has been particularly effective when the central priorities involve catching up, for then the problems of knowing what to do, when and how to do it, and whether it was properly done, are solved by reference to a working model, by exploiting what Gerschenkron . . . called the “advantage of backwardness.” ... Accompanying these advantages are shortcomings, inherent in the nature of the system. When the system pursues a few priority objectives, regardless of sacrifices or losses in lower priority areas, those ultimately responsible cannot know whether the success was worth achieving. The central authorities lack the information and physical capability to monitor all important costs—in particular opportunity costs—yet they are the only ones, given the logic of the system, with a true interest in knowing such costs. (Ericson, 1991, p. 21).

Our appeal should be based on these eight "Focused on" priorities and values of how better the oil and gas industry and its operations could be handled. They may not initially be the right way to go, but we are committed to working with the various communities to discover and ensure the right ones are. If your an enlightened producer, an oil and gas director, investor or shareholder, who would be interested in funding these software developments and communities, please follow our Funding Policies & Procedures, and our Hardware Policies & Procedures. If your a government that collects royalties from oil and gas producers, and are concerned about the accuracy of your royalty income, please review our Royalty Policies & Procedures and email me. And if your a potential user of this software, and possibly as a member of the Community of Independent Service Providers, please join us here.

Technorati Tags: People's Lanlgois Capabilities Development Leadership Management Failure Orlikowski
 

Perez, Crisis and Innovation Part I

We begin our review of Professor Carlota Perez new paper "The Financial Crisis and Innovation: A view of technical change with the aid of history". I would find it difficult to choose whom has had a greater influence on People, Ideas & Objects, Professor Carlota Perez or Professor Richard Langlois. Professor Langlois has helped to define the Draft Specification with his research in Modularity, Boundaries of the Firm, Transaction Cost Economics and his "Vanishing Hand". Whereas Professor Perez has established the context of the economic times that we find ourselves in. Particularly what we can expect as a result of the Information & Communications Technology Revolution (ICTR). I am grateful for both of their work.

This February 2010 paper of Professor Perez' is quite probably the most important, critical and timely paper we could ever review. There are many new and valuable findings within the document and it is of particular value to what we at People, Ideas & Objects call our Community of Independent Service Providers. We will be reviewing this paper in detail in several parts, today being a fresh look at some of her past work.

Professor Perez begins with a summary that sets the tone for the document. Emphasis is mine.

This essay locates the current financial crisis and its consequences in a historical context. It briefly outlines the difference in patterns of innovation between the first two or three decades of each technological revolution –regularly ending in a major financial collapse– and the next two or three decades of diffusion, until maturity is reached. With this historical experience in mind, the essay discusses the opportunity space for innovation across the production spectrum taking into account the specificity of the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) paradigm and the increasing social and environmental pressures in the context of a global economy. Finally, there is a brief look at the sorts of institutional innovations that would be required to provide adequate finance to take full advantage of those opportunities. p. 2

There has been much we have reviewed of Professor Perez' work. This next quotation appears new to me, however, it is so obvious now that I think she needed to state it clearly for us to fully appreciate our situation.

Nevertheless, globalisation is a fact and the new emerging economies will change the shape of the world to come. p. 3

From an oil and gas perspective, our focus on demand is justified. The volume of supply of oil and gas will be a constraint to the global economy. The demand for innovation from the oil and gas producer will reach significant proportions. Operating within the global economy will also bring the full scope of the political, geographical, logistical and science based issues to the forefront of everyone in the industry. Organizing for this purpose is what we have been writing about, and preparing the communities for, at People, Ideas & Objects.

In the past I have shied away from the discussion of political points of view with respect to Professor Perez' work. I am a free market kind of guy and her views on the role of government in solving the economic problems have caused me difficulty. I think however, that I have been incorrect in not attributing the role of government to moving away from the casino atmosphere of financial capital, and the need for production capital to take the lead. This paper clearly states her values and the need for this transition to be aided by the role of government. The partisan nature of the discussion in the U.S. however, I think needs to adopt more of the attitudes and thinking of Professor Perez.

The other consequence of the bust, which could in some sense be defined as ‘positive’, is that by revealing all the crooked ways of the financial world during the boom, it has broken the myth of an ideal ‘free market’ and brought back the State into an active role in the economy. Such a come back is not limited to restraining the abuses of finance but extends to favouring the expansion of production and job creating activities over speculation and to spreading the benefits of growth more widely across society. p. 3

I highly recommend that everyone download this paper and print it out in hard copy. It is something that will be valuable as a frequent reference over the next number of years. Professor Perez' work has substantial value to anyone and everyone that will live in this globalized economy, this paper summarizes her work in a very substantial way.

To highlight the review of her theories and terminology I include the following definitions that frame our economic times. [Time frame]

This is the Installation period, [approximately 1971 - 2000] which begins in the midst of a mature economy in decline and ends with a frenzied prosperity characterised by the triumph of the new paradigm, the emergence of new giants and the development and collapse of a major financial bubble. p. 6

The second period brings to fruition all the potential opened up by the new technologies. It is the Deployment period [current to 2040?] when the new production giants serve as engines of growth. It is a time of ‘creative construction’ involving the expansion of both the new and the rejuvenated sectors and usually spreading the benefits of growth much more widely than during Installation. Production capital is then at the helm of investment decisions and finance adapts (or is induced to adapt) to serve those longer-term objectives and benefits from them. p. 6

The years between the bust and the unleashing of Deployment (from two years to as much as thirteen, as was the case in the 1930s) [2000 to current] constitute the Turning Point, referring to the shift in conditions and leading role from one period to the other. p. 7

In a previous post I quoted Professor Ralph Raico who stated the following about Professor Ludwig von Mises.

Back in the early 1700's there were slums, people were poor, people died, every possible plague. Mises says you cannot understand the industrial revolution without understanding the western world was undergoing an un-precedented population explosion. For example, England in 1750 had a population of about 6 million; by 1850 the population was 24 million. The question was how would these new tens and tens of millions of people survive? Mises said the industrial revolution was the answer to the population explosion. That's how they survived, by society becoming immensely more productive.

The industrial revolution was the solution to the population explosion and issues of the day. We now stand at a point in time where the benefits of the Information & Communication Technology Revolution are available to solve the problems that we face today. With the research of Professor Perez we can see clearly that now is the beginning of this trend, and the only thing that is stopping us is ourselves. From her paper.

In 2009 the world is going through the Turning Point and deciding the global and national context for the full Deployment of the ICT surge. Understanding the nature and direction of the changes required is a crucial input for designing institutional and policy innovation and increases the probability of taking best advantage of the new wealth creating potential of the new paradigm. p. 7

Our appeal should be based on these eight "Focused on" priorities and values of how better the oil and gas industry and its operations could be handled. They may not initially be the right way to go, but we are committed to working with the various communities to discover and ensure the right ones are. If your an enlightened producer, an oil and gas director, investor or shareholder, who would be interested in funding these software developments and communities, please follow our Funding Policies & Procedures, and our Hardware Policies & Procedures. If your a government that collects royalties from oil and gas producers, and are concerned about the accuracy of your royalty income, please review our Royalty Policies & Procedures and email me. And if your a potential user of this software, and possibly as a member of the Community of Independent Service Providers, please join us here.

Technorati Tags: People's Perez Economics Change Management Innovation CISP Leadership